Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sounds like a sectarian civil war similar to the Northern Irish Troubles is developing...

 Jihadin wrote:


So for 20 days those two Battalions secured the airport, the highway and the entire region thereby forcing Crimea to vote "Putin"

no one forced crimea to do anything... crimea has been biting at the bit to get out of ukraine for quite some time, they have tried several times prior to this, and ukraine has simply not let them leave. Claiming they were forced at gunpoint to vote a certain way is ludicrous.

 Jihadin wrote:
Those two battalions pretty much took all of Crimea at gun point. Now that's a freaking huge operational "Foot Print"

So for 20 days those two Battalions secured the airport, the highway and the entire region thereby forcing Crimea to vote "Putin"

How in Gawds name they lose Afghanistan

I imagine it was because the Afghans didn't want them there and actually fought back.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Sounds like a sectarian civil war similar to the Northern Irish Troubles is developing...

Its very like northern Ireland

 easysauce wrote:
Im just amazed at how all the pro west people here are just hand waiving away kievs use of the military on its own people, the abhorrent body count that is being racked up... for some reason its ok for kiev to use the military on protestors, but if yanokovich had sent in the tanks and helios against maiden, that of course is wrong.

President Assad bombs and kills "his own people"...and the US government wanted to bomb the gak out of the Syrian military launch a "Limited Strike" to teach him not to kill his own people.

The Kiev Regime is now hunting down and killing its own (separatist) citizens in extra-judicial executions...In the interests of consistency, shouldn't we be gearing up for a "Limited Strike" on the Kiev Regime to teach them not to kill their own people?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:



1. Because it creates a humanitarian crisis.
2. Because the infrastructure (i.e. pipes) to pump drinking and agricultural water across the Sea of Azov / Black Sea from Russia to Crimea probably does not exist.
3. Because the Kiev Regime claims that Crimea was occupied against the will of the Crimean people.
a) if that is true, then they are forcing even more suffering onto their own people for the crime of being occupied.
b) if it not true, and the people of Crimea really do want to be part of Russia then they are being punished for exercising their democratic right to self determination.
4. Because civilized governments don't just arbitrarily cut off drinking water without warning for 2.4 million people.
5. Because its fething petty.

Solution: don't do stupid stuff before thinking about the consequences. Turns out Russia isn't as awesome as they thought it would be. Hm.

Post removed.
Reds8n

Of course ukraine shutting off the water was secretly a russian plot to infuriate the situation!

I get it, everything bad happening there is always russias fault, it all makes sense now!


Putin is also behind the pro kiev forces burning 30+ people to death today, they have just been KGB brainwashed to infuriate the situation!

The Nazis have always been good at burning people.

We're talking like two Battalions here.. Like 600-700 men. Mechanized Infantry. I was being sarcastic

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Especially when you staged a revolution to get said friendly government.

I remain amazed that you believe the revolution was the US' doing. A popular former president gets thrown in jail on trumped-up charges, the administration responsible takes numerous actions the majority of the country doesn't approve of, and somehow the US talks the populace into going out and getting shot?

Actually, I blamed the NGOs, and not all of them, just the ones that are heavily funded by the government and just so happen to also show up whenever a country is being destabilized. I'm sure it could just be coincidence the CANVAS among others, always seams to be lurking around these revolutions and civil wars.

CANVAS, the organization that doesn't accept funding from governments, and is largely funded by a single Serb, is secretly a CIA operation?

 easysauce wrote:
I never claimed this.. why do you think it? seriously, talk about "crazy chaff"... I said NOTHING about the last 10 years of NGO's, not a single word. Yet you are putting words in my mouth here seaward, all I said was that he was there in an overt advisor/operative (managers are still operatives, and agents, the term is not synonomous with feild agents alone).

You and Andrew make a lot of the same pro-Russia arguments. I tend to get the two of you confused.

right, this is exactly what I said... he is there for an advisory role, and its an overt advisory role. not sure why you are argueing with me when we are both saying the CIA is there to help advise.plan ect. Just like saigon, this is indicative of the states support for the west ukraine government.

I think our officially-stated support of the Ukrainian government is more indicative.

and While you claim putin backs the separatists, he hasnt visited, nor has his top advisors. OBS he does back them to a degree, but he has yet to go so far as to send any prominent members of his government in to do anything.

That's because it's an illegal movement. The British prime minister didn't meet with Jefferson Davis in Richmond despite providing support to the Confederacy.

And if the supreme commander of NATO is convinced that the Russians are using military forces to assist the separatists, that's good enough for me.

This thread is full of people denying and yelling about how the states is NOT backing the east ukrainian government when that is catagorically proven to be untrue. The states is very much supporting them, and has been for some time.

I think you meant to say "west Ukrainian," but either way, you're incorrect. There is no west Ukrainian government nor an eastern one. There's a Ukrainian government. Then there's a civil revolt.

I remain amazed that you believe the revolution was the US' doing. A popular former president gets thrown in jail on trumped-up charges, the administration responsible takes numerous actions the majority of the country doesn't approve of, and somehow the US talks the populace into going out and getting shot?

I'm Amazed that you don't see this, as this is pretty standard and has happened repeatedly in the past.

CANVAS, the organization that doesn't accept funding from governments, and is largely funded by a single Serb, is secretly a CIA operation?

Do you just make up stuff as you go. Canvas among others is heavily funded by the US state department.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-engineered-arab-spring-the-ngo-raids-in-egypt/28433

 Andrew1975 wrote:

I remain amazed that you believe the revolution was the US' doing. A popular former president gets thrown in jail on trumped-up charges, the administration responsible takes numerous actions the majority of the country doesn't approve of, and somehow the US talks the populace into going out and getting shot?

I'm Amazed that you don't see this, as this is pretty standard and has happened repeatedly in the past.

CANVAS, the organization that doesn't accept funding from governments, and is largely funded by a single Serb, is secretly a CIA operation?

Do you just make up stuff as you go. Canvas among others is heavily funded by the US state department.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-engineered-arab-spring-the-ngo-raids-in-egypt/28433

Global Research "about" page wrote:The Global Research website was established on the 9th of September 2001, two days before the tragic events of September 11. Barely a few days later, Global Research had become a major news source on the New World Order and Washington’s “war on terrorism”.

Since September 2001, we have established an extensive archive of news articles, in-depth reports and analysis on issues which are barely covered by the mainstream media.

In an era of media disinformation, our focus has essentially been to center on the “unspoken truth”.

During the invasion of Iraq (March-April 2003), Global Research published, on a daily basis, independent reports from the Middle East, which provided an alternative to the news emanating from the “embedded” journalists reporting from the war theater. Since 2004, Global Research has provided detailed analysis and coverage of US-NATO-Israel preparations to wage a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran.

Emphasis mine. Do you have anything other than that page supporting that CANVAS takes government money? You'll have to excuse me, but a source claiming to provide news about a "New World Order" is about as far down the ladder of credibility as one can get, especially when it claims that CANVAS is the same entity as Otpor! with a new name. Yes, some of the people involved are the same, that does not make it the same organization. Further, they don't even bother to cite any sources. If I'd written that and turned it in to my Professor as an academic paper I'd be either laughed or kicked (probably both at the same time) out of that course faster than I could say "potato-peeling primordial pygmy plant".

First it tries to equate Otpor! with CANVAS, despite the two being two distincive organizations, then it tries to claim that just because Otpor! recieved funding from the US that means that CANVAS does too, and THEN goes on to claim that Mohammed el-Baradei clearly knew that the Arab Spring was coming because he formed a political coalition. It couldn't possibly be the other way around, that the change came because they did that in the first place, it has to be a conspiracy!

I'm sorry, but that's insane. Utterly, completely insane. It's quite possible that CANVAS really IS recieving US funding for all we know, but that web page doesn't contain any proof for it. At all.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Im just amazed at how all the pro west people here are just hand waiving away kievs use of the military on its own people, the abhorrent body count that is being racked up... for some reason its ok for kiev to use the military on protestors, but if yanokovich had sent in the tanks and helios against maiden, that of course is wrong.

President Assad bombs and kills "his own people"...and the US government wanted to bomb the gak out of the Syrian military launch a "Limited Strike" to teach him not to kill his own people.

The Kiev Regime is now hunting down and killing its own (separatist) citizens in extra-judicial executions...In the interests of consistency, shouldn't we be gearing up for a "Limited Strike" on the Kiev Regime to teach them not to kill their own people?

I'm pretty sure the "US government" didn't want to actually do anything in Syria. A few politicians did, but certainly not the government as a whole.

 Hordini wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Im just amazed at how all the pro west people here are just hand waiving away kievs use of the military on its own people, the abhorrent body count that is being racked up... for some reason its ok for kiev to use the military on protestors, but if yanokovich had sent in the tanks and helios against maiden, that of course is wrong.

President Assad bombs and kills "his own people"...and the US government wanted to bomb the gak out of the Syrian military launch a "Limited Strike" to teach him not to kill his own people.

The Kiev Regime is now hunting down and killing its own (separatist) citizens in extra-judicial executions...In the interests of consistency, shouldn't we be gearing up for a "Limited Strike" on the Kiev Regime to teach them not to kill their own people?

I'm pretty sure the "US government" didn't want to actually do anything in Syria. A few politicians did, but certainly not the government as a whole.

Plus the whole "chemical weapons in an unstable country" deal.

Besides, NATO going in with military in Ukraine now would just be "aggression" and "provocative behaviour" and blatantly a front to encircle Russia with death rays, and we can't have that now can we?

Because its ok for one side to violently take power and oust someone that a lot of people voted for, then when those voters try to oust the people who just over threw him, with far less violence mind you, THEY are illegitimate.

Because Kiev called DIBS on violent overthrows.

I still have seen nothing done to justify use of deadly military force against anti-kiev protestors,

Nor justify burning 30 people alive in odessa, or the right sector attack to break the truce.

The body count has been piling up, I wonder if yanokovich had just started shooting people if you all would have supported that violence?

also, for the tin foilers who still read western media as if its not ALSO a lie, which denies pro-kiev forces from being responsible for throwing Molotovs into the building to kill all those people.

A democratically elected president who imprisoned his main political opponent as soon as he was in office.

 easysauce wrote:



also, for the tin foilers who still read western media as if its not ALSO a lie, which denies pro-kiev forces from being responsible for throwing Molotovs into the building to kill all those people.

Source?

PREVED everyone!
I have returned from short stay in Crimea and traded my Ukrainian passport for a nice Russian one. Yay!
Everything in Crimea has calmed down and mostly gone back to normal. There are still some problems with infrastructure that goes through Ukraine, but nothing that won't be solved soon There also are a lot of men from Crimea in Eastern Ukraine and Odessa currently. And things there certainly haven't calmed down. Dear God... There has been too much blood spilt. I can't ever see the situation there returning to normal. The coup-regime and their fascist nazi friends have messed up beyond repair now, stupid fools they are.
Especially in Odessa, things have gone really messed up. There is also good news though: http://rt.com/news/156724-odessa-police-release-activists/

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
A democratically elected president who imprisoned his main political opponent as soon as he was in office.

 easysauce wrote:



also, for the tin foilers who still read western media as if its not ALSO a lie, which denies pro-kiev forces from being responsible for throwing Molotovs into the building to kill all those people.

Source?

did you not watch the video of someone throwing the molotov?

sorry but is that not proof enough of people throwing molotovs?

Putting one person in jail certainly doesnt justify killing a few hundred people. This woman has also called for the deaths of ethnic russians.

 easysauce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
A democratically elected president who imprisoned his main political opponent as soon as he was in office.

 easysauce wrote:



also, for the tin foilers who still read western media as if its not ALSO a lie, which denies pro-kiev forces from being responsible for throwing Molotovs into the building to kill all those people.

Source?

did you not watch the video of someone throwing the molotov?

sorry but is that not proof enough of people throwing molotovs?

Putting one person in jail certainly doesnt justify killing a few hundred people. This woman has also called for the deaths of ethnic russians.

Source for "western media" (broad brush there BTW) denying who threw it?

[DELETED[

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
A democratically elected president who imprisoned his main political opponent as soon as he was in office.

 easysauce wrote:



also, for the tin foilers who still read western media as if its not ALSO a lie, which denies pro-kiev forces from being responsible for throwing Molotovs into the building to kill all those people.

Source?

Google.

You're (well, easysauce's) making the statement, you back it up.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


You're (well, easysauce's) making the statement, you back it up.

Ignore my comment. Your first remark simply asked for a "Source", which I took to mean you were asking for confirmation that the event actually took place, then I read your second more detailed remark (posted after I started writing my comment) asking for a source confirming that Western media denied it.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


You're (well, easysauce's) making the statement, you back it up.

Ignore my comment. Your first remark simply asked for a "Source", which I took to mean you were asking for confirmation that the event actually took place, then I read your second more detailed remark (posted after I started writing my comment) asking for a source confirming that Western media denied it.

Fair enough, I could've been clearer.

Self-defense forces in the anti-Kiev stronghold of Slavyansk are Ukrainians, not Russians, who distrust the new regime and the Western powers that support it, New York Times reporters have discovered. The forces also said they are not being paid to fight.

Two New York Times reporters have spent a week in the city of Slavyansk in eastern Ukraine, talking to members of the self-defense forces. The journalists visited self-defense checkpoints and observed the forces as they battled Ukrainian troops amid a military assault on the city on Friday.

The resistance fighters of the 12th Company, part of the People’s Self-Defense of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, deny claims made by Kiev and its Western sponsors that Russia or private tycoons are paying them to fight.

“This is not a job,” one of the activists, Dmitry told the NYT reporters. “It is a service.”

Armed with dated weapons, the self-defense activists said they would have bought new weapons if they had financial support. The NYT journalists reported seeing weapons from the 1980s and 1990s in checkpoints and warehouses.

http://rt.com/news/156736-no-russians-ukraine-activists/

Former United States congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has called on the US to stay out of the intensifying Ukraine conflict, saying it was Western powers that initially stirred unrest there and which continue to incite the tense situation.

http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/ron-responds-ukrainian-assault-launched-pro-russian-forces/

Those guys probably really aren't in the Russian's pocket. I mean why spend money importing protesters and fighters when the locals are already doing that for you? Still, its obvious that the Russians are sending some sort of force into Ukrainian territory to stir up trouble in any case.

I read the opinion of a pro-Ukrainian blogger on the molotov matter, which detailed the situation as "The armed pro-Russians thought they could waltz in and beat up the pro-Kiev supporters as they had done elsewhere. They didn't count on their opposition to be nationalists and outnumber them four to one though. So despite only being armed with makeshift weapons, and the pro-Russians having guns, the nationalists beat them back. Of course being in the extreme side of nationalism things got out of hand and molotovs started flying". Meh. What I did pick up on in from that blog entry was the question of "what's Putin going to say to the mothers of all those dead Russian soldiers who aren't officially in Ukraine?". Their bodies are somehow retrieved, those guy's families are paid off, or the Russians just take that land over so there's no problem.

I just feel for the all the normal people that're being caught up in this political dick waving contest. That and its annoying to see how easy it is for countries to pull the "everyone knows we're up to some bad crap, but where's your properly formatted evidence?" card and get away with it. Hopefully everything will turn out all right, but I'm still doubting that any of this will be looked on favourably in retrospect.

 easysauce wrote:


Because its ok for one side to violently take power and oust someone that a lot of people voted for, then when those voters try to oust the people who just over threw him, with far less violence mind you, THEY are illegitimate.

I really have to wonder if you just started following this story a couple months ago or something. The anti-Yanukovych protests were not a recent phenomenon, and stayed peaceful long after they had plenty of justification for doing otherwise. And, for that matter, if he had the will of the people behind him, I doubt he would have fled. You can make it sound like an armed uprising led a violent military campaign that physically ousted Yanukovych if you really like, but it'd be nonsense.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Not really accurate, all Russia did was remove the subsidy that they had in place, now Ukraine pays the same as everyone else. That's usually what happens when you snub your nose at someone, they remove preferential treatment.

It's basically Russia saying "OK well if you want to have the EU support you instead of us, lets see them help you out with the gas bill".

Sigh. I really fething love it when someone tries to correct me on some point, when I've already explained the actual situation in more detail elsewhere. If you're going to get technical, at least read the damn thread.

Anyhow, to repeat myself;
"The subsidy was part of the generalised understanding that allowed Russia to run pipelines through the Ukraine and in to Western Europe."

It is nothing like as simple as Russia just happily subsidising exports to a foreign country.

Not really, Ukraine was under Russian political will, it was only when the West tried to interfere that the situation started to boil. There was a status quo that it seamed most people in Ukraine and Russia were OK with, until the West showed up.

Umm, there hasn't been a status quo since the fall of the Soviet Union. What there was, for some time, was the idea that the Ukraine wouldn't have to pick either side because there would be no more 'Russia vs the West' dynamic.

That assumption fell away over time, but it was never replaced with any kind of status quo in which the country happily accepted close ties with Russia, but always caused internal friction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Because they screamed "We're being invaded by Putin" when they should have asked him or better yet reassure him that his deal will be honored. No one bothered to ask Putin in political field at all.

Not giving someone a call to tell them that a deal will continue to be honoured is not the same thing as actually failing to honour a deal. I mean holy crap, the excuses people are coming up with in this thread is just remarkable.

Simple analogy, I lend you money to buy a car. Your deal is to pay me on the 1st of every month, and you do so for a couple of years. Then I hear that you lost your job, and I then go and repossess the car.

You point out that's outrageous, because you hadn't actually missed a payment, and I say that you broke the deal because you didn't contact me to assure me you were going to continue making payments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.

Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.

First up, trying to isolate the Russian threat over gas as being purely a response to Ukraine's threat to cut off water supplies is silly. Russia's threat there has a lot of causes, and it'd be arguable is Ukrainian water supply is even one of those issues, let alone a major issue, let alone the only reason.

Secondly, it's a total nonsense to watch a relationship deteriorate over months in a string of reactions and counter-reactions, and to pick out one single instance in isolation and say one side started that.

 sebster wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.

Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.

First up, trying to isolate the Russian threat over gas as being purely a response to Ukraine's threat to cut off water supplies is silly. Russia's threat there has a lot of causes, and it'd be arguable is Ukrainian water supply is even one of those issues, let alone a major issue, let alone the only reason.

Secondly, it's a total nonsense to watch a relationship deteriorate over months in a string of reactions and counter-reactions, and to pick out one single instance in isolation and say one side started that.

1. Its a good thing I never said that then, isn't it? I said that Russia had made vague unfulfilled threats (in relation to Ukraine's revolution, subsequent hostilities with Russia and military actions against "Terrorists") of cutting off the gas supply. Ukraine responded by actually cutting off Crimea's water supply, thereby increasing the risk that Russia will actually carry out its threat. In which case, Ukraine will have shot itself in the foot.

No-one hear ever said that the Russian threat was made in response to Ukraine cutting off the water. Thats nonsense, as Crimea's water supply being cut off came after Russia made the threat over the gas. Only YOU are saying this.

Please argue against what I actually say.

2. Again, I did not say that. My point was that Ukraine responded to a threat with pre-emptive action, making it even more likely that Russia will carry out its threat.

 easysauce wrote:
also, for the millionth time, crimea was not invaded, that is factually false. Crimea had a vote, and choose to separate.

If the Russians had waited until after the election, or at least waited until after an election was attempted and quashed by Kiev, then what you claim above would be true. But Russians troops were active in February, within a few days of the start of the unrest, and more than a month before the referendum was held.

That's an invasion.

I mean holy fething gak, you don't go about putting troops in foreign countries because you reckon they're probably going to be alright with it when you have a ballot later on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
no one forced crimea to do anything... crimea has been biting at the bit to get out of ukraine for quite some time, they have tried several times prior to this, and ukraine has simply not let them leave. Claiming they were forced at gunpoint to vote a certain way is ludicrous.

True, claiming they were forced to vote that way is silly.

But then, plenty of people are claiming that a vote organised inside of a month, without any established government in place, and with no observation from any international body, is just assumed to be a completely valid poll of the population. Not at silly as the claim that the election was held at gunpoint, but more or less in the same ballpark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
2. Again, I did not say that. My point was that Ukraine responded to a threat with pre-emptive action, making it even more likely that Russia will carry out its threat.

Gibberish. The water to the Crimea was cut off after there were Russian troops active in the region. Talking about the water as the first act from which other acts followed is absolutely fething bonkers.